This
model is based on the assumption that all charged elementary particles
have the same quantity of Linear Force (Fl). We show how this
assumption leads to an alternative interpretation of particle
experiments.

Linear
Force

Linear
force is found by the following equation:

. . ..1

Fl = linear force

m = mass (MeV)

r = radius (fermi)

Using
the Classical Electron Radius and electron mass to find the Linear Force
constant we have:

0.5109989MeV
x 2.817941fermi = 1.4399648...... . 2

Radius

Using Fl
and m we can calculate the radii off other particles as show in Table 1

Charge

Using
the formula for finding the Classical Radius to find the radii of other
particles produces the same result as shown in Table 1only if all particles have the same charge value.

de
Broglie Wavelength

Calculations show that:

Circumference divided by de Broglie wavelength = constant .3

Confirming that a mathematical relationship exists between particle and
particle wavelength.

In
astrophysics the sequence found by Tsui et al, is the measurement of
waves within a field for example; measuring the distance between the
centres of the dust bands around comet Hale-Bop on two radii (maximum
and minimum length) gives the following table:

Band

A

B

C

D

4 (outer
band)

Actual

38

39

60

48

less 1/3 =

25.3

26

40

32

3

Actual

25

27

40

32

less 2/5 =

15

16.2

24

19.2

2

actual

16.5

16

23

19

less 3/7 =

9.5

9.1

13

10.9

1 (inner
band)

Actual

9.4

9

12

10

The
cause of these dust bands is believed to be the suns magnetic field
that I take to mean - magnetic compaction of charged (dust) particles.

We are
unable to match the Tsui sequence to particle compaction and find that
the magnetic compaction of single particles can be better explained
using the Laughlin and Jain sequences.

H
Heiselbergs2 quotes the Laughlin sequence (1/2, 1/3, 1/4,
1/5 etc) as being the most important sequence and the Jain sequence
(1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 4/5 etc) as being the next most important sequence; no
comment is made on the fact that, placed in order these two sequences
add up to a constant value of 1.

One
possible cause for the constant is that Laughlin and Jain sequences are
two measurements of the same particle in different compaction states as
shown in Fig. 1.

Fig.1

This
compaction between two parallel force fields will be referred to as
single plane compaction. It was then necessary to match the fractional
sequences to the particle mass values reported by the Particle Data
Group (2004 tables).

Mass

Two
points immediately become obvious. The first is that if we are to give a
cause for stopping compaction, then the practice of measuring wavelength
at mid-point between peak and trough; has to be abandoned as it does not
provide a cause. But, at the peak and trough the wave changes direction
to start a new wave and this provides a cause because at both points,
there must be sufficient wave force to commence the building of a new
wave.

Secondly it was realised that each fraction is a fraction of the
previous wave and not a fraction of the wave at which compaction
started.

This
lead to the construction of Table 1 as illustrated by Fig.2

TABLE 1

(Extracted
from full table)

Fraction
deducted

radius

theoretical

mass:
CLF
formula

mass

from PDG

2004 tables

Margin
of
error

PDG reference

a

b

c

d

e

f

(1)

14.089705

0.1021998

Graviton?

1/2

7.0448525

0.2043996

0.26

±48

56 CHETYRKIN
98 THEO MS scheme

1/3

4.6965684

0.3065994

0.3

±10

57 CUCCHIERI
98 LATT MS scheme

1/4

3.5224263

0.4087991

0.43

± 8

52 MALTMAN 99
THEO MS scheme

1/5

2.817941

0.5109989

0.5109989

electron

1/6

2.3482842

0.6131987

0.553

±12

55 BECIREVIC
98 LATT MS scheme

1/7

2.012815

0.7153985

0.66

±19

58 DOMINGUEZ
98 THEO MS scheme

1/13

1.0838235

1.3285972

1.3

±0.3

ASTIER 00D
NOMD

1/17

0.8288062

1.7373963

1.7

±0.3

1 AUBIN 04A
LATT MS scheme

1/18

0.7827614

1.8395961

1.79

±0.38

VILAIN 99
THEO MS scheme

1/23

0.6125959

2.350595

2.3

±0.4

3 NARISON 99
THEO MS scheme

1/27

0.521841

2.7593942

2.7

±0.06 4.72

3 AUBERT 04X
THEO

1/28

0.5032038

2.8615939

2.9

±0.6

2 JAMIN 02
THEO MS scheme

1/30

0.4696569

3.0659935

3

±0.7

5 NARISON 95C
THEO MS scheme

1/33

0.4269608

3.3725929

3.4

±0.11

5 HOANG 04
THEO

1/35

0.402563

3.5769924

3.6

±0.03 4.68

4 BAUER 04
THEO

1/37

0.3808029

3.781392

3.8

±0.2

27 EICKER 97
LATT MS scheme

1/38

0.3707817

3.8835918

3.9

±0.5

6 AUBIN 04A
LATT MS scheme

1/39

0.3612745

3.9857916

3.95

±0.3

17 CHIU 02
LATT MS scheme

1/40

0.3522427

4.0879913

4.05

±0.6

19 MALTMAN 01
THEO MS scheme

1/41

0.3436514

4.1901911

4.19

±0.9

7 JAMIN 02
THEO MS scheme

1/42

0.3354692

4.2923909

4.25

±0.7

5 NARISON 95C
THEO MS scheme

1/43

0.3276676

4.3945907

4.4

±0.1 ±0.4

14 BECIREVIC
03 LATT MS scheme

1/44

0.3202206

4.4967905

4.5

±0.11

6 MCNEILE 04
LATT

1/45

0.3131046

4.5989903

4.57

20 AOKI 00
LATT MS scheme

1/46

0.306298

4.70119

4.7

±2

21 GOECKELER
00 LATT MS scheme

1/51

0.2762688

5.212189

5.2

±0.9

7 JAMIN 02
THEO MS scheme

1/63

0.2236461

6.4385864

6.4

±1.1 8

NARISON 99
THEO MS scheme

1/69

0.2041986

7.0517851

7

±1.1

9 JAMIN 95
THEO MS scheme

1/72

0.1956904

7.3583844

7.4

±0.7

10 NARISON
95C THEO MS scheme

1/223

0.0631826

22.790552

22.7

±20

61 EICKER 97
LATT MS scheme

1/224

0.0629005

22.892752

22.8

±14.1

59 CHETYRKIN
97 THEO MS scheme

1/744

0.0189378

76.036639

76

±0.09

9 CORCELLA 03
THEO

1/793

0.0177676

81.044428

81

±0.09

7 BAUER 03
THEO

1/827

0.0170372

84.519221

84.5

±0.10

11 EIDEMULLER
03 THEO

1/861

0.0163644

87.994014

88

±0.05

16 KUHN 01
THEO

1/900

0.0156553

91.979805

92

±0.06

13 MAHMOOD 03
THEO

1/910

0.0154832

93.001803

93

±0.05

8 BORDES 03
THEO

1/930

0.0151502

95.045799

95

± 4

49 GOECKELER
00 LATT MS scheme

1/969

0.0145405

99.03159

99

±0.090 ±0.025

18 PINEDA 01
THEO

1/978

0.0144067

99.951388

100

±0.82

19 BARATE 00V
ALEP

1/979

0.014392

100.05359

100

±14

50 AOKI 99
LATT MS scheme

1/1008

0.0139779

103.01738

103

±0.57

15 ABBIENDI
01S OPAL

1/1027

0.0137193

104.95918

105

±17

40 GAMIZ 03
THEO MS scheme

1/1037

0.013587

105.98118

106

±0.031

12 ERLER 03
THEO

1/1086

0.012974

110.98896

111

±12

55 BECIREVIC
98 LATT MS scheme

1/1115

0.0126365

113.95276

114

±12

45 MALTMAN 02
THEO MS scheme

1/1125

0.0125242

114.97476

115

±0.06

17 NARISON
01B THEO

1/1135

0.0124139

115.99675

116

±0.10

10 DEDIVITIIS
03 LATT

1/1145

0.0123054

117.01875

117

±0.070

14 PENIN 02
THEO

1/1155

0.0121989

118.04075

118

±17

41 GAMIZ 03
THEO MS scheme

1/1223

0.0115206

124.99034

125

± 2 ± 8 38

BECIREVIC 03
LATT MS scheme

1/1262

0.0111646

128.97613

129

±16

44 JAMIN 02
THEO MS scheme

1/1272

0.0110768

129.99812

130

± 9 ±16

39 CHIU 03
LATT MS scheme

1/1370

0.0102845

140.0137

140

±15

48 AOKI 00
LATT MS scheme

1/1448

0.0097305

147.98529

148

±48

56 CHETYRKIN
98 THEO MS scheme

1/1487

0.0094753

151.97108

152

±27

47 KOERNER 01
THEO MS scheme

1/1663

0.0084725

169.95824

170

-3

42 ALIKHAN 02
LATT MS scheme

Fig.2

A
section of Table I illustrating how particles are compacted by the
external wave system; five particles found by experiment are shown
set in waves with wavelengths drawn to scale (amplitude is not to
scale).

Particle jets

In a
paper on particle jet experiments J M Campbell, M A Cullen and E W N
Glover3 reported on the difficulties of extracting useful
information. By measuring the width of the jets shown in figure 3 of
their report and comparing the result with CLF radii predictions we show
how the particle jets match CLF predictions. Six of the jet particles
have already been discovered and reported by the PDG while two appear to
be new discoveries

TABLE 2

fraction of

remainder

CLF

2r

particle jet

width

PDG mass

PDG ref.

a

b

c

d

e

1/10

2.817941013

2.75

1/11

2.561764557

1/12

2.348284177

1/13

2.167646933

2.1676469

13

1/14

2.012815009

1/15

1.878627342

1/16

1.761213133

1/17

1.65761236

1.6576124

17

1/18

1.565522785

1.6

1.5655228

18

1/19

1.483126849

1/20

1.408970506

1/21

1.341876673

1/22

1.280882278

1/23

1.225191745

1.21

1.2251917

23

1/24

1.174142089

1/25

1.127176405

1/26

1.083823466

1.07

1/27

1.043681856

1.0436819

27

1/28

1.006407504

1.0064075

28

1/29

0.971703797

1/30

0.939313671

1/31

0.90901323

1/32

0.880606566

1/33

0.853921519

0.8539215

33

1/34

0.82880618

1/35

0.805126004

0.81

0.805126

35

1/36

0.782761392

1/37

0.761605679

0.7616057

37

1/38

0.741563424

0.75

0.7415634

38

1/39

0.722548978

0.722549

39

1/40

0.704485253

0.7044853

40

1/41

0.687302686

0.6873027

41

1/42

0.670938336

0.6709383

42

1/43

0.655335119

0.6553351

43

1/44

0.640441139

0.64

0.6404411

44

1/45

0.626209114

0.6262091

45

1/46

0.612595872

0.6125959

46

1/47

0.599561918

1/48

0.587071044

1/49

0.575090003

1/50

0.563588203

1/51

0.552537453

0.55

0.5525375

51

A graph
of Table 2 is shown in Fig. 3 (below).

Structural constants

Einstein showed that:

.................................................5
c2

The CLF model formula shows that:

.
6
r

Then:

7
c2 r

c2 and Fl are constants therefore:

Constant .. ..8

Because the linear force is the same for all elementary charged
particles and because speed alters the position of the field force
centre, the density forward of the force centre increases with speed;
causing an increase in the apparent mass of the particle, when, in fact;
the total matter content of the particle remains unchanged. Energy
increases with increasing speed because of the increase in density
forward of the field force centre, and is at it maximum on the shortest
radial,.

Circular waves

Using
the Laughlin sequence to visualize the internal wave structure we show how
wave rotation creates the prism effect that leads to the ring pattern
observed in experiments.

Returning to atomic structure, the wave pattern shows how the wave
structure contains the nuclear particles and why nuclear particles
undergo a reduction in volume. Particles compacted between the rings are
subject to compression in one plane only and do not undergo a change in
volume because they can expand in the non-compaction (concentric) plane,
but, Particles compacted in the nucleus are subject to compaction in all
planes and consequently are forced to undergo a reduction in volume.

The circumference shows a possible cause for
de Broglie waves (dotted line) in that there is a variation in wave
force on the particle/field surface.

Electron binding energies5

The average value for each sub-shell for
elements 1 to 925 is used to construct table 3.
Limiting the fractions to those with single digit denominators, reveals
the Jain sequence; indicating that the internal wave structure is the
probable cause of the Jain sequence. These fractions occur on the
transverse radial of electrons as shown in Fig. 1.

The
space between groups of sub-shells can be seen clearly in a graph of
average values. It does not agree with current grouping in the two
outermost shells. The current grouping is, of course; present in
individual atoms, but disappears in the table of averages.

(Table 3 [produces the fractions used to
construct the circular wave diagram).

Table 3

Shell

Average

value

Middle

shell value

Fraction

Of

Higher

value

1s

35923.376

35923.376

2s

6607.7259

2p(1/2)

6415.4193

6415.4193

1/6

2p(3/2)

5660.2928

3s

1710.7432

3p(1/2)

1547.9213

3p(3/2)

1363.292

1363.292

1/5

3d(3/2)

1302.9508

3d(5/2)

1257.5032

4s

481.01455

4p(1/2)

396.22807

4p(3/2)

338.29123

338.29123

1/4

4d(3/2)

275.32955

4d(5/2)

258.94318

4f(5/2)

112.325

4f(7/2)

104.26765

104.26765

1/3

5s

110.00811

5p(1/2)

78.442105

5p(3/2)

63.705405

5d(3/2)

52.784615

52.784615

1/2

5d(5/2)

50.830769

6s

37.86

6p(1/2)

21.325

By extending the EBE
energy investigation to cover each sub-shell we find that the following
fractions are (Heiselberg) n1 sequence fractions:

2p(1/2)
and 2p(3/2) 1s
1s

Shells 3,4,5, and
sub-shell 2s divided by 1s produce fractions in the sequence:

11111 1 etc

2
3 4 5
6 7

Laughlin sequence
fractions are shown in bold type, the complete sequence will be referred
to as the 'modified Laughlin sequence'. The complete table is shown in
appendix A.

The modified Laughlin sequence agrees with the wave structure shown in
fig. 2 and the tables shown in fig.1 explain the appearance of the n1
sequence in the following manner:

Within an atom, electrons are compacted in the transverse plane
(modified Laughlin sequence), allowing the longitudinal plane to
spread on the atomic field concentric. When the atomic field
concentric sphere is no longer large enough to allow for transverse
plane electron compaction, the electrons are forced to compact on
the longitudinal plane (Heiselberg n1 sequence). When there is
insufficient space for both transverse and longitudinal compaction;
the electron is forced to compact in all planes (spherical
compaction). The particle is now small enough to allow for further
compaction in the transverse plane. When there is insufficient space
for plane or spherical compaction, further (spherical) compaction is
only possible by the creation of composite particles.

Summary

We have
shown that compaction of a single elementary particle is responsible for
the creation of all observed
charged elementary particles. The fractional sequence:

11111 1 etc

2
3 4 5
6 7

used to determine compaction changes is
similar to that found in the compaction of particles within an atomic
field, as shown by an examination of the Electron Binding Force values.
There is however one obvious difference, collision experiment particle
compaction occurs in steps that are fractions of the remainder
(remaining radius)while atomic compaction occurs in fractions
that are fractions of the whole (1s); this occurs because
atomic compaction is compaction within a field; collision
compaction is compaction within a vortex.